philosophy

Disscuss the case of Terri Shiavo, do you think her husband has the right to let her died, who has the final say about this? What do you think Terri Schiavo D. Read and Watch New York Times Retro Report on the case of Terri Schiavo VD. Read and Watch New York Times Retro Report on the case of Terri Schiavo https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/21/us/from-private-ordeal-to-national-fight-the-case-of-terri-schiavo.html?searchResultPosition=9 E. Watch ABC Report on Terri Schiavo’s case https://fod-infobase-com.ezproxy.uhd.edu/p_ViewVideo.aspx?xtid=33019&tScript=0

Exploration Paper: Write a four-page research paper on the topic of human dignity as understood in the thought one of the following major Western philosophers: Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Descartes, Locke, Kant, Hume, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Sartre, Martin Buber, Simone de Beauvoir, or W.E.B. Du Bois. One should explore how the philosopher defined dignity, how he or she accounted for the basis or cause of human dignity, and what the philosopher considered to be the implications of human dignity in terms of the ethical, the social, and the political. Concentrate on how the thinker argued. That is, identify the thinker’s premises (assumptions), inferences from the given premises, and conclusions ultimately reached. As such, this is to be an explanatory/analytical paper. This paper is not to be a biographical overview or to be a summary of the philosopher’s work. This is to be a 3rd person, singular, objective paper (Do not use “I” or “me”). Research must be internally documented (within the body of the text), and there must be a works cited or bibliography page. Use either an MLA or a Turabian style in writing. At least five sources are needed; at least one source should be primary (the writing of the thinker under consideration). Wikipedia and internet blogs are unacceptable sources. Sources should be both formal and academic, which is the case with almost all sources found through the library date base. There should be at least four pages of content, along with a properly formatted works cited or bibliography page. DO NOT PLAGIARIZE.

In this five-paragraph response, I want you to consider how you personally define “humanity”? What does it mean to study “being human”? Is it important? Why or why not? What does it mean to be “human”? What separates us from the animals or the gods?

Throughout all your college education, and elsewhere when educated presentations are required, you must always see that your argument is aligned with the content. That is, if you want to prove some fact that we can see with our own eyes, things in the world around us, you must use inductive arguments. You prove a medicine works by testing it rigorously–that is inductive proof. But if you want to prove something that is necessarily true in all possible worlds, something that must be true because of the meanings of the words, the ideas, then you must use deductive arguments. You prove any person always has $4 if they have $2 in each hand, merely by thinking about it (you don’t have to see every case with your own eyes). So when you want to prove something, you must use induction for knowledge of our visible world, and deduction for knowledge of ideas (in all possible worlds). You cannot prove Smith shot Jones just by thinking about them–you have to have visible facts you can look at, touch, etc., from CSI (induction). But to know what murder is, what counts as murder, we must think about the idea, and how the word is properly used (deduction). A jury must decide both (what happened and whether that falls under the law), so both kinds of proof are presented to them. (We decide Smith shot Jones by induction, but call it murder by deduction (what the word means in law).

First, what is virtue ethics, and how does it differ from the ethical theories we’ve already considered (utilitarianism and deontology)?   Second, briefly explain the principles of care ethics. Finally, explain whether you think care ethics should be understood as a kind of virtue ethics, or whether it’s really more like utilitarianism and deontology.

True/False: Each prompt below is either true or false. If part of the prompt is false, then the entire prompt is. Justify each answer provided in least one complete sentence. 1. There are broad and narrow senses of the category of moral rightness (i.e., of the morally obligatory). 2. According to readings, Divine Command Theory does poorly with respect to the internal appeal desideratum for a moral theory. Short-Answer: Answer each of the following prompts in 3-4 well-written, well-organized sentences. Be sure to follow all the instructions noted at the top of the assignment. 3. In Plato’s Euthyphro, Socrates challenges Euthyphro’s (second overall) definition that piety is being loved by the gods. Socrates’ challenge relies on Euthyphro’s belief that the gods disagree about what they love. Concisely explain how Socrates’ challenge shows that Euthyphro’s theory of piety fails the consistency desideratum for a moral-religious theory. 4. Consider the following adapted Euthyphro Dilemma Question: Is the action right because God commands it, or does God command the action because it is right? How does the traditional (unrestricted) Divine Command Theorist answer this question? Concisely explain one problem with their answer. 5. Some Divine Command Theorists revise their theory in response to the problem discussed in question 6 above. Concisely explain how they revise their theory, and then discuss one problem with the theory, as discussed in the course material.

Choose any one of the theories on personal identity, from an author discussed in Unit 2 (Descartes, Locke, or Hume), that interests you. Specifically, choose a theory that you are convinced is wrong/false. In your own words, explain the reasoning that the author uses to defend the view (i.e., the author’s argument). Then, identify one specific premise in the argument and present an objection to that premise (i.e., convince your reader why s/he should reject that premise, and subsequently, the author’s theory). Address how the original author might respond to your objection, and how you would respond to their response.   Logistics Your paper should do all of the following. i)  Papers should be 1000-1500 words in length (approximately 3-5 double-spaced pages). ii) Provide textual support for your arguments by quoting or paraphrasing at least 3 times from the relevant course readings. iii) Cite all quotations/paraphrases used by naming the author of the work, the title and the chapter/section that you are citing from.

In engaging with the jailhouse thoughts of Socrates and Martin Luther King, we realize that we can’t fully consider issues of justice and injustice (what in our first reading Frankena calls normative thinking) until we have an account of what makes the just actions just and the unjust actions unjust (what Frankena calls meta-ethical thinking). We then get discussions of four different meta-ethical accounts: subjectivism, the divine command theory, cultural relativism, and egoism. (These are actually five if we count both psychological and ethical egoism.) Choose one (two, at most) of these accounts and apply it/them to some of the thinking of Socrates or King that we’ve encountered in this course, to show either why what you choose does NOT offer a plausible account of meta-ethics or why it DOES. Be sure in your discussion to include an objection that a reasonable person might have to your position, as well as your reply to it. Your two-to-three pages (500-750 words)

Questions Morreall disagrees with traditional views on humor that connect it with emotion. Give an example of humor (in your own words, not from the text) that demonstrates disengagement (as Morreall describes it). Identify the theories of humor and ethical considerations in your example. Give an example of a humor situation that fits the definition of the superiority theory and discuss how disengagement might NOT happen in that situation. Discuss why Morreall might disagree with your points? In The Psychology of Humor, Martin discusses “decommitment.” Give an example from your real life (from work or in another real situation) in which somebody has disengaged through humor. Important: Do not give names or other details that would identify the person or exact situation in your example. What was the reaction of the target of the humor? What do you think would have happened had the decommitment statement not been made? Did decommitment deflect any negative fallout from the original comment? Morreall’s text discusses disengagement and Martin discusses decommitment. The two terms sound similar, but refer to different things. Give specific examples of each one and explain the difference. You may use real life situations (without names or identifiers) or examples from popular culture in your response. What would you predict early philosophers might say about ‘decommitment’ in a humor situation? What ethical and social considerations should be considered in today’s society when someone decommits and says, “It was only a joke”?

1. Define the problem in the scenario 2 Analyze the problem 3 Generate options for solving the problem 4 Evaluate the options for solving the problem  5 Decide on the best option for solving the problem 6 Explain how you will implement the decision made and reflect on whether this option was the most effective  Your child comes home from school with an assignment sheet for a school project. He / she is very excited about the project and begins work immediately, doing research on the Internet and gathering materials. You read over the assignment sheet and notice that your child is not including all of the required items in the project, and you have some ideas for how to improve the quality of the presentation. You recently read an article in a parenting magazine about the importance of a child developing responsibility for his/ her own learning. You recall the many ways in which your parents took over your school projects. You, on the other hand, want to encourage your child’s confidence in his / her ability to complete a project independently. The next day, you are at the grocery store when you see a parent of a student in your child’s class. That parent has spent over $30 in supplies for the science project and is taking a day off of work to put the pieces of the project together.